I'd suggest 2 :) But not that I don't use this feature. It should be easy to unify the code: something along the lines of starting the process, and then looping over bibtex files and sending them one by one to bibtex2html's standard input. Cheers, Clément. On 2016-09-10 02:07, Thibault Marin wrote: > > > Do you mean: > 1) Using `call-process' for cases where a single bibliography file is > passed and `process-send-string' when multiple files are used? > 2) Using `process-send-string' regardless of the number of bibliography > files? In this case, can we still unify the code between single and > multiple files? > 3) Something else? > > In my opinion 1) makes the code more error-prone and harder to > maintain. If there are other reasons to replace the existing behavior > (for single bibliography files) by `process-send-string', then 2) may > make sense, otherwise it sounds to me that it may not be worth it: the > existing code is apparently working fine for single files, I would feel > a little uncomfortable changing it based only on my test case, > especially since there isn't (as far as I know) a battery of tests for > it. > > - Is having a temporary file unacceptable? > > The first patch creates and keeps the combined bibliography around, but > this created file could easily be deleted if preferred. If the problem > is just the extra file, the first patch can fix it and seems less > intrusive to me. > > - Is the main concern performance? > > I think that the main argument for using standard input may be to skip > the disk access required by the temporary file. I do not know if the > potential savings for files of size around a few MB (or more?) justify > the more intrusive change in the code. Maybe others would have a better > feel for this than I do. > > Thanks for the comments on this. Once a consensus is reached, I can > work towards an updated patch. > > thibault > >> I'd suggest starting the process and then using process-send-string. >> >> Clément. >> >> On 2016-09-08 23:55, Thibault Marin wrote: >>> >>> Clément Pit--Claudel writes: >>> >>>> On 2016-09-06 23:46, Thibault Marin wrote: >>>>>>> I am attaching a patch which allows me to use multiple files with html >>>>>>> export. It creates a combined bibliography file and call bibtex2html on >>>>>>> it. I am not sure this is the best way to address this, so any >>>>>>> suggestion would be welcome. >>>> >>>> Sorry for the late comment. bibtex2html can read from standard input; maybe that would be cleaner? >>>> >>>> Clément. >>> >>> That may be a good idea, it would prevent potential name clashing with >>> the created bib file. Currently, the function creates a >>> -combined.bib file with the content of all >>> bibliography files, then bibtex2html creates >>> -combined.html and >>> -combined_bib.html. Passing the contents via stdin >>> would skip the -combined.bib. We could achieve the >>> same by simply deleting -combined.bib after calling >>> bibtex2html. I personally don't mind leaving the .bib file after >>> processing, but if there is a consensus to limit the side effect, we can >>> do that. >>> >>> As far as the implementation goes, I am not sure what is the best way to >>> get this to work with stdin. In the attached patch (which does *not* >>> work) I tried to use `call-process-region' and dump the bibliography >>> files into a temporary buffer. This complicates the code a little. >>> Alternatively, we could use the `INFILE' parameter from `call-process', >>> but it looks that this would require a file, so it would not change much >>> from the previous patch. >>> >>> Any thoughts? >>> >